Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: ‘BAAKI 8 BHI SHARE KAR DALO’: The Comment That Told Court She Knew Too Much
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: The Punjab & Haryana High Court has rejected writer Madhu Purnima Kishwar’s anticipatory bail, citing a telling comment she made and her apparent knowledge of 8 similar videos — raising questions the court said only custodial interrogation could answer.
Arvind Chhabra
Chandigarh, May 30
When a Single Sentence Became a Legal Liability
On the evening of April 18, 2026, writer and activist Madhu Purnima Kishwar re-posted a 14-second video clip on X — the platform formerly known as Twitter. That act alone might have remained a footnote in an otherwise crowded social media news cycle. What turned it into a criminal case, and what ultimately cost her anticipatory bail before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, was not just the video. It was what she said after posting it.
In a comment on her own post, Kishwar wrote: “Baaki aath bhi share kar dalo Mehak Behna.”
Seven words. Translated roughly as “Share the remaining eight as well, sister Mehak.” To the investigating agency and, critically, to the bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, those seven words raised a question that no amount of legal argument could satisfactorily answer during the hearing on Friday, when her pre-arrest bail petition came up for hearing: How did she know there were eight more?
What the Video Was, and What It Was Made to Seem
The video at the centre of FIR No. 44, registered on April 19, 2026 in Chandigarh, was a social media influencer presently residing in Edgewater, New Jersey, USA — on Facebook, YouTube and Instagram on April 12, 2026.
The clip shows a man identified in the status report as Jaspal Singh Sarai receiving a massage from a woman. It is, in itself, an unremarkable piece of footage. What transformed it into a matter of criminal investigation was the manner in which it was circulated — with captions, comments and insinuations that the person in the video was Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: The status report filed by DSP Abhinandan and placed before the court, lists six social media handles accused of spreading the video, attributing it falsely to the Prime Minister. Kishwar’s X handle @madhukishwar — which the prosecution noted commands a following of 18 lakh users — is the first on that list.
According to the status report, Kishwar downloaded the video from another platform and uploaded it independently on X, rather than simply retweeting it — a distinction the prosecution pressed and the court found significant.
1,74,000 Views and the Weight of a Large Platform
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Kishwar through video conference, argued that his client had merely retweeted a 14-second clip innocuously and without ill intent. He contended that she is a seasoned academician with no criminal antecedents, that she cannot be held responsible for comments others make on her posts, and that the offence of forgery — one of the charges — is not made out since she did not prepare the video.
The prosecution, represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Amit Jhanji, pushed back sharply.
The video, counsel for UT Chandigarh argued, was already present on other platforms but had attracted limited attention. It was only after Kishwar uploaded it on her X account — with her own comment — that it garnered 1,74,000 views and speculation began circulating that the person in the video resembled a constitutional authority, i.e., the Prime Minister. Her large following, the prosecution argued, was not incidental but consequential: it amplified what might otherwise have remained obscure.
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: The high court found this argument difficult to dismiss. The court observed that Kishwar, as a prominent social media personality and scholar, could not be presumed to be unaware of the impact of such a post — one that attracted not only 1,74,000 views but comments from other co-accused and the general public.
The Comment That the Court Could Not Ignore
The court noted that the investigation remains at a nascent stage, with several aspects yet to be unearthed — including the origination of the post, the individuals involved in orchestrating it, and the nature of the relationship between Kishwar and others in the alleged network.
What gave that observation its sharpest edge was the comment Kishwar made on her own post: “Baaki aath bhi share kar dalo Mehak Behna.”
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: The court flagged this comment as raising significant questions. If Kishwar had simply encountered a video online and shared it as a matter of comment or criticism, as her defence maintained, why would she know that there were eight additional videos of a similar nature? The original post had by this point been deleted. The question of how Kishwar came to be aware of the existence of eight more such clips — and who “Mehak Behna” is, and what her relationship with Kishwar was — is something the court said the investigating agency must unravel.
The court noted that the modus operandi in the matter was yet to be unraveled, describing it as part of the solemn duty entrusted to the investigating agency.
In plain terms: the court was not convinced this was a solitary, spontaneous act.
Madhu Kishwar Bail Rejected: Three Notices, Three No-Shows
Kishwar’s case before the court was further weakened by her conduct after the FIR was registered.
According to the status report, the investigating agency served her with a notice on April 20, 2026, at her Delhi address. She did not appear. A second notice followed on April 26. She did not appear. A third was issued on May 5. She did not appear.
The high court noted this pattern explicitly, observing that it demonstrated non-cooperation with the investigating agency. The court contrasted her conduct with that of other co-accused — individuals who had also re-tweeted the video with objectionable content — who had joined the investigation. The regular bail application of co-accused Hassan Mohiuddin Siddiqi, against whom similar allegations of retweeting the video were made, was separately dismissed.
The court’s reading: others in the same position had cooperated. She had not.
Follow North Desk on WhatsApp for the latest from Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb7ccdxJENy2H87DBG3E
ALSO: Madhu Kishwar FIR 44: Chandigarh Police’s Missing Case
